But if Romney played the friendly politician, kindness wasn't his specialty at Bain. Rewarding CEOs with huge bonuses, he was generous to ranking executives. Yet he tended to treat those below his pay grade as little more than machinery.

Romney has claimed to have created 100,000 jobs at Bain and says that providing work for Americans was a primary company goal.

The smartest guys in the room: Members of Bain Capital with Romney, center, who managed to destroy four of his 10 biggest moneymakers

Jayme Halbritter

David Foster, a union official at Kansas City’s Armco steel mill, says Bain drove the mill into the ground by placing its own interests above customers’.

But Bain bought Domino's just months before Romney left to run the Salt Lake City Olympics, meaning someone else created those jobs. And he didn't manage Staples or Sports Authority; Bain was a minority investor.

By Romney's logic, any large investor—say, the Texas teachers' pension fund—also creates hundreds of thousands of jobs. The boast is so foolish that his campaign has since backed away from it.

Even Kaplan admits that private equity firms rarely create jobs. Workers are seen as costs, and costs are the enemy. According to Kosman, Romney was in truth among the most heinous job-killers of them all.

While writing his book, Kosman conducted an interview with a Bain managing partner. The man told him that when Bain was about to buy a company, its partners would hold a meeting. "He said that about half the time [they] would talk about cutting workers," Kosman says. "They would never talk about adding workers. He said that job growth was never part of the plan."

That claim was buttressed by the Associated Press, which studied 45 companies bought by Bain during Romney's first decade. It found that 4,000 workers lost their jobs. The real figure is likely thousands higher, since the analysis didn't account for bankruptcies and factory and store closings.

An example of Romney's cold-blooded approach is his 1994 purchase of Dade International, an Illinois medical-equipment company. He soon merged it with two similar firms, a move that tripled sales.

Once again, he couldn't help but raid the vault, peeling away $100 million for himself and investors at the same time Dade was laying off 1,700 American workers.

After Bain closed a Dade plant in Puerto Rico, human-resources manager Cindy Hewitt was asked to lure a dozen of those employees to work in the company's Miami factory.

But that plant soon closed as well. Although Romney was gobbling up millions, Bain still wanted those laid-off employees to repay their moving costs.

"They were treated horribly," Hewitt told The New York Times. "There was absolutely no concern for the employees. It was truly and completely profit-focused."

Yet Bain's molestation wasn't complete. It was trying to sell Dade but didn't like the offers it received on the open market. So it created an artificial market of its own.

In 1999, it forced Dade to borrow $242 million, which was used to buy back company stock from Bain, Dade executives, and their banker, Goldman Sachs.

Bain was again extracting profits with borrowed money. It had pushed Dade's debt to a bracing $2 billion. To help pay for the deal, the company laid off another 367 workers.

But that debt proved too much for Dade's shoulders to carry. Three years later, the company was bankrupt.

Kosman calls it standard Romney operating procedure. To pump short-term earnings, he would essentially "starve a company," whacking not just employees, but also customer-service and research-and-development funding—the ingredients of long-term prosperity.

"I think they're one of the worst, at least during Romney's time," Kosman says. "They were very aggressive about dividends. They were very aggressive about borrowing the most money they could. He's very driven to be the best he could be, and that was to be as cutthroat as he could be. But in the process, he hurt a lot of companies and cost a lot of jobs, maybe tens of thousands of jobs."

Kosman says it's telling that Romney never cites companies he actually managed as evidence of his job-building skills.

"If Romney had some stories to tell, he'd use those stories," he says. "I think it's very interesting that he's not telling those stories because I think they don't exist."

The Welfare Queen

Romney's economic views were on stark parade during this year's Michigan primary. He ripped President Obama for bailing out the auto industry and argued that it should have been dealt with in his favorite resting place: bankruptcy court.

He was particularly incensed that the president rescued workers' pension funds before covering Wall Street's bad loans.

But his faith in the free market wobbles when his friends need rescuing. Romney just as vigorously defends the $10 billion government bailout of Goldman Sachs, his investment partner at Bain.

After all, Romney frequently assumed the role of welfare queen himself.

In 1988, he bought South Carolina photo-album maker Holson Burnes. In exchange for the firm's promise to build a new factory, the people of Gaffney, South Carolina, gave Bain $5 million in bonds and $200,000 in utility upgrades.

The plant closed just four years later. The 100 jobs there were later shipped to Mexico.

At GSI, he dumped $44 million in pension shortfalls on the federal government. And when he bought mattress maker Sealy in 1997, he took $600,000 in welfare to move the firm from Ohio to North Carolina.

Peak Capitalism, like Peak Oil, is now on the horizon and heading toward us. The central mechanism which the 1% use to increase their cash holdings is to gain temporary control of an object (property, corporation, government, etc) and then attach debt to that object, pocket most of the value of that debt as cash into their account, then release control of the object. The end result of this is that every object on the planet becomes burdened with debt beyond its value. All objects, even the most unexpected, eventually become available to this mechanism through ‘programs’, such as programs to allow unqualified properties to get a mortgage, or programs to get unqualified nations an international loan. As long as huge numbers of new consumers arrive into the economy each year, the (false) pretenses of this mechanism are still believeable to the players. But with a period of zero growth in the developed world upon us, the facade is melting.

I recently worked as an executive for a company that was owned by a PE firm - not Bain, but with many personal connections to Bain and one that appears to operate similarly.

This article does a good job outlining how these PE firms tend to work. In my experience:

1) With the money of its investor pals, the firm purchases a company in whatever condition (it may be a profitable company or a struggling company, depending). The investors want a return quickly - usually within 3-5 years - so there is little incentive for long-term decision-making. And as anyone who has ever run a company can tell you, you can do plenty in the short term that destroys the long term.

2) The PE firm immediately begins earning "management fees," whether they are active in the business or not, and whether the company's performance improves or not. This money comes out of the company, which is to say that money that we might have invested in product development or customer service or marketing is instead first going to the pockets of our owners. The PE firm often brings in their management consultant pals who also earn exorbitant fees; I can say from experience that there are few things more enjoyable than having a 26-year-old business school grad who knows nothing about your industry tell you how to run your business. Also note that a PE firm with a broad portfolio cannot possibly be expert in all the industries in which it competes, and so the success of these businesses is often in spite of the PE firm, not because of it. (That clearly doesn't stop Mitt from taking credit himself.)

3) As soon as the PE firm can flip the company, it usually does so. Again, the sale is often based on numbers that are propped up for the short-term. The skeptic will ask, How can the PE firm find buyers if everyone presumably knows the game? The answer: You'd be amazed how stupid some MBAs are, and a sale requires a single sucker.

In the end, the PE firm and its investor pals get paid a ton of money, while jobs are often lost and companies weakened. Needless to say, this is a great system if you're one of the very few making money... and a horrible system for everyone else involved and for the economy at large.

Is this the kind of "management style" we seek? Because it's the future of our nation we're talking about now.

So it looks like Mitt Romney created the Rust Belt ruining dozens of viable companies and putting thousands of american workers out of jobs. Why should this asshole be allowed to walk free much less be president?

Useyourheadnow... You are a phucking retard sympathizer for the devil that is "etch-a-sketch" Romney! He, thru Bain, crippled American steel production!! No wonder 99% of all building steel comes from China now. You probably sit behind a cubicle drumming to a keyboard all day...you obviously know nothing of labor you arrogant sycophant! I live and breath skilled labor and have seen first hand what he did to GST in Kansas City because thats where I live and work! So... Open your blind ass eyes and realize a candidate who made millions in the private sector while destroying THOUSANDS of lives is NOT the answer to this countries problems, he will only make matters worse!

To John Kessler, who reacted to my tale of wealthy senior citzens who tried to give their Social Security checks back to the government: I fully agree that SS should be kept as an entitlement for all, no matter how wealthy. You are right that is would soon become a different sort of program if SS were doled out on a needs basis. My point is that many wealthy senior cirizen I knew finally ended up having their checks automatically directed to the cause or charity of their choice, usually in addition to whatever other philanthropic giving they were doing. The poin ti they realized they had far more than they would ever need, More of the wealthy should be so aware and stop ging money in the tons of millions to manipulate elections, which is how Romney will be elected if he is elected. Romney, the parasitical president (and worse)! And we had better start thinking about that as a real possiblilty

I'd like an example of a manager who went to prison for not firing unproductive workers.
Plus, where did it say these fired workers were all incompetent or unproductive? In fact they seemed perfectly capable of doing their jobs and making money for their companies before Baine came along and broke things.

Social Security is a benefit all should receive regardless of wealth or need. The reason is that it is an insurance program that all workers pay into so we all can receive benefits when we need them or when we reach the appropriate age. Excluding wealthy people from receiving benefits is the first step towards converting Social Security into a welfare program. Once that happens it would become easy to justify benefit cuts.

No. That's called Communism. Or the old, " Can't you share with your brother?" We already know the answer to that which is called Cain Killed Abel. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Angela Garcia as NeonMosfet

If you want to learn a little about Mor(m)onism, read "Banner Under Heaven"....
The Mor(m)on "religion" is a hate-based theologic miss-mash of extra-terrestrial and earthbound fundamentalist beliefs, and, like most other organized religions in the US relies on inculcating fear and guilt from cradle to grave.
The last thing we need is a Mor(m)on President who, as a Bishop in the church, has vowed to obey directives from the President of the Mor(m)on church (who claims to have a direct conduit from god and literally uses this fallacy to control church members) over all other laws of the land, including the US Constitution.

I love how this article ignores everything even Obama's team member says about Romney. Of course he did everything to get money for the shareholders. He has an absolute LEGAL obligation to do that. If he kept on a few deadweight employees because he was feeling nice and it was revealed to the SEC that he could have dumped a few to make profits better he would be in prison for willfully deflating company value (which people have made a fortune on before) If you own a publicly traded company and don't do everything possible to increase shareholder value and further do things that you know will definitely hurt shareholder value, you will be imprisoned and/or fined. No ifs ands or buts about it. Furthermore, as 'bad' as some of this may look, I look at what Obama has done and think 'Well we already know what the worse option looks like' and remember why I won't be voting for the 8+%, downgraded credit rating president who STILL hasn't pass a budget despite having total control of government for 2 years. Good job, dummy.

If President Obama is "required" to explain his faith and relationship with a Liberation Theology pastor (God sometimes "damned" the Israelites in the Bible--look it up-- it's all over the Old Testament---- for their wrondoings in order to set them straight and make themselves an example to the world) through one of his best speeches ever, 45 minutes on race 4 years ago, and explaining what the Trinity Church did and did not do for him, than I don't think it is out of bounds to ask Romney the same thing about his faith. Obama did not bring up race as a campaign issue. It was a subject forced on him. And he openly and brilliantly spoke on the issue. Can Romney do the same? Ordinarily, I would not ask him too. It's his own business. But I gather from his book, Dreams from My Father, that Obama spent his teen years learning somethiing about himself, sometimes the (very) hard way, and taking it seriously. It helped to make him the man he is. What did Mitt do? Prankster? HAH! Sounds a little like George W. redux.

Ever notice how much he looks like a scene from " The Outer Limits" in the photo above. " There is nothing wrong with your computer. Do not attempt to reboot. We have gained control of your media. We can turn your life into a dull blur, or extinguish it with crystal sharp clarity. For the next sixty years, sit quietly an mute. WE shall control all you see and hear."

What exactly does Mittastrophe stand for? Oh...silly me...he stands for jobs, bullying and $$$! He even defended JP Morgan Chase's CEO J. Dimon and praised Meg Whitman as she laid off 30k people. If people want to vote against their own self interest and put this man in office...then so be it. We already had a POTUS who ran the debt up, had a privatized war and host of other things. Mittastrophe's henchmen are going after the President's religion. But doesn't want anyone to question his religion? Morminism? I can go there, but I'm not. I'm voting for the man we have in there....at least Obama-cares.

Rumour has it that Romney has a mean streak---pretty vague rumours so far, but I can't get the image out of my head of him grinning as he explained that his dog probably had a better time sitting on top of that car (sh*****g diarrhea) than he would have sitting in the car with the family. Or the newest story about leading hs gang to cut off another students hair against his will. I wonder if Mitt had pets as a child...... I wonder how they fared. That is all off the main subject in the article, but this story makes gives me real pause......Who is this guy? Really?

people suffer mitt gets and gives bonuses morman?conservitive?the only thing people like him worship is ego,money.how is burning people considrd succesful.thats beyond greed.thats pure evil.hes acually got a chance at being potus WOW

Romney claims to be a good Mormon. Now I am not picking on Mormons---admittedly I don't know a lot about the faith, but I do believe it is a sort of Christianity or a sort of offshoot.He doesn't talk about it much, but I wonder how his personal morality comes into all of this as HE, himself,interprets its moral code. Is it OK to make a ton of money on the backs of others? Of course I have the same question about many very wealthy right wing milionaires and billionaires who claim they want to preserve the American Christian (White?) way of life by being parasites, making "investments" such as Romney did as a parasite, or many others taking government subsidies (oil, gas, corn, name it) to increase sheer wealth, while giving nothing back, indeed removing that money from their country, our country, to where it is safe from legal taxation for the commonweal.

Manny,Obama never had control of Congress except on paper. Remember fake filibusters? Remember Sen. McConnells designating the primary role of the Republican Party to absolutely ruin the President's term right from the beginning? Obama was naive in thinking he could negotiate with the Repubs. That was his major weakness. I think he has learned his lesson......Look what happened to the "grand bargain" he and John Boehner supposed had worked out. The Teabagger put so much negative pressure on Boehner that even that became impossible, though raising the debt ceiling has been pretty automatic through many presidents through decades.

Good questions, Cynthia. But why just question the motives of "right wing millionaires and billionaires"? Wealth isn't reserved for just the 'right wing'. Don't forget all the left wing millionaires and billionaires who claim they "want to pay more" but never seem to be willing to write the check. Additionally, don't be fooled into thinking wealth is reserved for the right. Odrama isn't selling all those $50,000 per ticket/plate dinners to 'the right wing'.

Of course I feel the same way about any (m)(b)illionaire, left or right, who is obviously parasitical, but I wonder if you know anyone who is wealthy and tried to refuse their Social Security checks, for example? I have, having spent many years working with retiree volunteers. The government won't take the money back. So they give it away. When I went to work in 2008 for my Congressional candidate, now my U.S. House Representive (I'm proud to say), I had no idea he was so wealthy, let alone how much money he gave away in his passion for the best education possible for everyone. I gradually learned of it as I got to know the office staff who had known him for some time. He was the youngest ever Secretary of Education in Colorado before he ran for Congress. He would walk to the office from his small aprtment which he shared with his partner, and I don't know what he drives when he drives, but I am told it is something small and unobtrusive, something I might drive on my lowly budget. The day he picked me up so we could go knocking on doors, it was no Mercedes he was driving, that much I know Through my involvement with election campaigns, I have learned through whispers and rumours that some of the Dems I have worked for were very quietly wealthy and just as quiet about their true philanthropic activities. I have no doubt that the same is true of some on the right. My wealthy retired Senior Citizen volunteers were very quiet about it. I was often astounded at the kind of wealth they had, as well as what they were giving away. As a matter of fact, one of the wealthiest was a dyed in the wool Repub (but not right wing extremist--far from it), was the first to tell me how many people he knew who tried to refuse Social Security. I don't put Mitt Romney the Koch brothers or Donald Trump in his category. My volunteer made them look small, and rather Scroogish by comparison, literally. And Obama has to do something, as do his wealthy supporters, (a sad, sad fact since the Citizens United case) often well known for their philanthopy, to offset the PAC money being raised by Rove and others from mostly unknown donors.